The Biblical Usage of the Titles for God
The argument often forwarded by trinitarians and some others is that since there is only one true God, and since Jesus is also called "God", Jesus must be that one true God, or else be a false god. However, the historical/cultural context of the Hebrew words for "God" indicates a legitimate usage of the word, other than meaning the Supreme Being or false god. Indeed, a study of the words involved indicates that the Hebrew words for "god", when applied to any other than Jehovah, can take on a more general meaning of might, strength, power. We will proceed to show this in this study.
The Greek word, theos, is used to describe Satan as "the god of this world" (2 Corinthians 4:4); it is also used to describe the saints as"gods," "sons of the Most High" (John 10:34, 35, from Ps. 82:6, Revised Standard Version). It is used of idols, or fabricated "gods who will go before us" (Acts 7:40), and heathen gods, "the gods have come down to us in human form!" (Acts 14:11, 12). Hence, THEOS itself has a more general application in Scripture, and the fact that it is occasionally used of Jesus should not be taken as proof that he was God Almighty. Such usage alone is not conclusive to warrant such a distinction.
But more importantly, is how the Hebrews used the words from which theos is translated. Being Hebrews, the New Testament writers would be well aware of this heritage. We need to keep in mind that the Bible writers were not Greeks, but Hebrews. Inspired and enlightened by the Holy Spirit (John 16:4-13; Galatians 1:12; Ephesians 3:5; 2 Timothy 2:2), they based their ideas and mode of thinking on the Hebrew Scriptures (Isaiah 8:20), rather than on Greek, Roman, or Latin philosophies or mythologies. Thus, it should be imperative that we see how the Hebrews used the Hebrew words for "god", and see if such could be applicable to NT usage concerning Jesus.
Let us start by referring to the incident where the Jewish leaders accused Jesus of blasphemy because, as they stated, being a man, he made himself "God". (John 10:33) The claim is false (even from the viewpoint of many trinitarians, since most trinitarians claim that as a man, Jesus was not by "nature" God, but human. In reality, Jesus denied that he was God by stating over and over that he was sent by the only true God, could do nothing of his own self, everything he had was given to him by God, etc. (Matthew 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; Luke 13:35; John 3:2,17; 5:19,22,23,27-30,43; 6:57; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26) In the immediate response to the accusation made by the Jewish leaders, Jesus responded: "Isn't it written in your law, 'I said, you are gods?' If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture can't be broken), Do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God?' (John 10:34-36) Again, instead of claiming to be God Almighty, Jesus clarified that rather than being God Almighty, he was sent by God, his Father, Jehovah, and that he was the Son of God -- not God Almighty Himself.
Nevertheless, Jesus did show that THEOS could be applied to him since he is the Son of God, just as it is applied to those who are regenerated sons of God. Jesus' use of the plural form theoi -- gods, which he applied to the "sons of God" of Psalm 82:6 -- men -- not God Almighty, and thus demonstrated that theoi, like elohim in Psalm 82:6, does not always mean God Almighty. John quotes Jesus in Greek as saying theoi -- the plural of theos. However, Jesus is quoting from the Hebrew Scriptures (commonly called the Old Testament) from Psalm 82:6, which, of course, was written in Hebrew, not Greek. What is the word that is used originally? It is a form of the Hebrew elohim. Jesus says that these "sons of God" are "gods" to whom the Word of God came. Whoever these might be, it provides a basis for examining the Hebraic usage of the word "god" as applied to others than Jehovah.
Nevertheless, Jesus did show that THEOS could be applied to him since he is the Son of God, just as it is applied to those who are regenerated sons of God. Jesus' use of the plural form theoi -- gods, which he applied to the "sons of God" of Psalm 82:6 -- men -- not God Almighty, and thus demonstrated that theoi, like elohim in Psalm 82:6, does not always mean God Almighty. John quotes Jesus in Greek as saying theoi -- the plural of theos. However, Jesus is quoting from the Hebrew Scriptures (commonly called the Old Testament) from Psalm 82:6, which, of course, was written in Hebrew, not Greek. What is the word that is used originally? It is a form of the Hebrew elohim. Jesus says that these "sons of God" are "gods" to whom the Word of God came. Whoever these might be, it provides a basis for examining the Hebraic usage of the word "god" as applied to others than Jehovah.
See also our study:
Who Are the Gods of Psalm 82:6?
Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon presents a synopsis of the usages of EL (Strong's #410). One may find this synopsis online. That synopsis shows the usage of EL as applied to men and angels with applications other than meaning either God Almighty or false gods. The same is true regarding usages of ELOHIM. Therefore, what we need to know is how forms of the Hebrew word el, and its variations of elohim and eloah, are used in the Bible, and if these words have any application to the usages of theos as applied to Jesus, such as in John 1:1; John 20:28 and probably in Hebrews 1:8. We do find that the Bible uses these Hebrew forms in many different ways, in application to men, angels, and even inanimate objects, as well in other ways.
Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon presents a synopsis of the usages of EL (Strong's #410). One may find this synopsis online. That synopsis shows the usage of EL as applied to men and angels with applications other than meaning either God Almighty or false gods. The same is true regarding usages of ELOHIM. Therefore, what we need to know is how forms of the Hebrew word el, and its variations of elohim and eloah, are used in the Bible, and if these words have any application to the usages of theos as applied to Jesus, such as in John 1:1; John 20:28 and probably in Hebrews 1:8. We do find that the Bible uses these Hebrew forms in many different ways, in application to men, angels, and even inanimate objects, as well in other ways.
When considering forms of the Hebrew word *EL*, we can see that such forms are used to mean other than God Almighty or a false god by examining the following texts from the King James Version, in which English translations of the Hebrew word El are in denoted by *..*: "It is in the *power* of my hand." (Genesis 31:29) Here, the Hebrew word EL is not rendered as "god" or "God", but as "power". "There shall be no *might* in thine hand." (Deuteronomy 28:32) In this verse, the KJV renders the Hebrew word for "God" as "might". "Neither is it in our *power*." (Nehemiah 5:5) Here the King James Version renders the word for "God" as "power". "Like the *great* mountains." (Psalm 36:6) Again, the Hebrew word for "God" is not rendered in the KJV as "God" or "god", but as "great". "In the *power* of thine hand to do it." (Proverbs 3:27) This is similar to the usage found in Genesis 31:29. The Hebrew word for "God" is rendered in the KJV in this verse as "power". "Pray unto *a god* [mighty one] that cannot save." (Isaiah 45:20) "Who among the sons of the *mighty*." (Psalm 89:6) "God standeth in the congregation of the *mighty*." (Psalm 82:1) "Who is like unto thee, O Lord [Jehovah] among the *Gods* [mighty ones or ruling ones]?" (Exodus 15:11) "Give unto the Lord [Jehovah] of ye *mighty*." (Psalm 29:1) "The *mighty* God even the Lord [Jehovah]." (Psalm 50:1) "The *strong* among the mighty shall speak" (Ezekiel 32:21). One can verify these usages online by using Bible Hub's concordance of Strong's #410.
Therefore, we should be able to readily see that the word EL, when used of anything or anyone other than Jehovah, takes on the general meaning of "strength", "might," or "power", rather than of the Supreme Mighty One. As mentioned before, in the Bible, only the God and Father of Jesus is referred to as the "one God" from whom are all. (1 Corinthians 8:6) Nevertheless, the Hebrew and Greek words for "God" apply to any powerful being, but it applies only to Jehovah as the exclusive source of all power - the Almighty Jehovah, and are thus used in relative terms of others.
Psalms 95:3 - For Jehovah is a great God [EL - Strong's #410], And a great King above all gods [ELOHIM- Strong's #430]. -- American Standard Version.
Psalms 136:2 - Oh give thanks unto the God [EL - Strong's #410] of gods [ELOHIM- Strong's #430]; For his lovingkindness endureth for ever. -- American Standard Version.
We should note that it is stated that Jehovah is the Supreme "El," and He rules over others who are also ""elohim"—powerful ones. And it should also be noted that Jehovah is the name applied to the Supreme Being—our Father—and him whom Jesus called Father and God. -- John 17:1,3: 20:17; Psalm 110:1; Isaiah 61:1,2; Micah 5:4; Matthew 22:43-45; 26:64; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; Acts 2:34; 7:55; Romans 8:34; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:13; 10:12,13; 1 Peter 3:22.
Many like to read the prophecy of Isaiah 9:6 as saying that the Messiah shall be called the "Mighty God [EL]". And so he is, for to him the Father, the only true Supreme Being (John 17:1,3), has given all power in earth and heaven. (Matthew 28:18, and 11:27) "He is Lord of "all"—next to the Father for "The head of Christ is God" (1 Corinthians 11:3) and "it is evident that he [God] is excepted who subjected all things to him [Jesus]." (1 Corinthians 15:27) They are one in mind, purpose, etc., because Jesus willingly submitted his own will to that of the Father (John 5:30), just as we also must submit our own will, mind, spirit to that of the Father if we would be made heirs and sons of God.
ELOHIM is the plural of ELOAH, which, in turn, is derived from EL. Both ELOHIM and ELOAH are thus forms of the word EL. Like EL, the application of ELOHIM is not confined to that of the Almighty and false gods. We have already seen that it is applied to the "sons of God"—men—in Psalm 82:6,7. Additionally, we find that Moses is spoken of as *elohim* to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1) and also to Aaron (Exodus 4:16). One author claims, "Angels are never referred to as “God'. Yet, this is misleading, since we find that in the Bible, the angels are also elohim: Psalm 8:5 (compare Hebrews 2:7,9; also Deuteronomy 10:17; Psalm 136:2; 138:1 could also be speaking of angels as elohim). Additionally, the judges of Israel are referred to as *ha elohim* (as a body): Exodus 21:6; 22:8,9,28 (see Acts 23:5). The wicked spirit that impersonated Samuel is called elohim. (1 Samuel 28:13) Thus seen, anyone who has been given special power by Jehovah can legitimately be referred to as a god. Even the wicked spirits are legitimately called by this title, since they do receive their power from the only ultimate Supreme Power, Jehovah, although they misuse the power that Jehovah has given to them.
Below are some scriptures in which Jehovah the [All-Mighty] El/Elohim is contrasted with other elohim [Mighty Ones].
- Psalm 86:6-8—"Hear, Jehovah, my prayer....
There is no one like you among the gods [elohim]." - Psalm 95:3--"For Jehovah is a great God [el], A great King above all gods [elohim—mighty ones]."
- Psalm 50:1--"The Mighty One [el], God, [elohim; literally, God of gods -- el elohim --
The mighty of the mighty], Jehovah, speaks." Young's Literal reads on this: "The God [el] of gods [elohim]—Jehovah—hath spoken." - Exodus 15:11--"Who is like you, Jehovah, among the gods [el—mighty ones]?"
- Psalm 96:4--"For great is Jehovah, and greatly to be praised! He is to be feared above all gods. [elohim—mighty
ones.]"
These instances suffice as samples: others may be found by those who desire to seek them.
All one needs to do to verify the above is to look into the Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance, under Hebrew words #430 and #410, as well as #433. While doing this, it would be profitable to note the various ways these Hebrew words are rendered in the King James Version. One can do the same on the following sites, although it may not be as efficient as using a hard copy of the above mentioned lexicon :
http://studylight.org/lexicons/hebrew/410.html
http://studylight.org/lexicons/hebrew/430.html
http://studylight.org/lexicons/hebrew/433.html
http://studylight.org/lexicons/hebrew/410.html
http://studylight.org/lexicons/hebrew/430.html
http://studylight.org/lexicons/hebrew/433.html
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/430.htm
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/433.htm
http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/0410.html
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/433.htm
http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/0410.html
http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/0430.html
https://kingjamesbibledictionary.com/StrongsNo/H410/God
https://kingjamesbibledictionary.com/StrongsNo/H430/God
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h410/nasb20/wlc/0-1/
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h430/nasb20/wlc/0-1/
https://kingjamesbibledictionary.com/StrongsNo/H410/God
https://kingjamesbibledictionary.com/StrongsNo/H430/God
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h410/nasb20/wlc/0-1/
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h430/nasb20/wlc/0-1/
In view of the above, we can say that there is much in the way of Hebraic cultural heritage that supports the idea that one can be scripturally called or have the title of "god" in a sense other than that of Supreme Being or the Supreme Power. The Hebraic meaning of the words for GOD basically is that of might, strength, and power, and even when applied to Jehovah, it is used in reference to His being the Supreme Power, Might, and the source of all might and power in the universe. Thus, one must realize that when applied to others rather than Jehovah, the words for "God" take on a more general meaning of might, power, and strength, as can be seen by the King James (as well as other translations) that give the Hebrew words for God the meaning of might, mighty, strong, etc. Only the God and Father of our Lord Jesus is God in the absolute sense of power—the Supreme Being, the only one in the whole universe who receives no power from any other. (John 17:1,3) Jesus claimed to be the Son of the Supreme Being; he never claimed to be the Supreme Being of whom he was the Son.
The above information concerning the usage of the Hebrew titles for "God" is confirmed by many reference sources.
Easton's Dictionary states concerning the word "God," "It is the rendering (1) of the Hebrew 'El , from a word meaning to be strong; (2) of 'Eloah_, plural _'Elohim. The singular form, Eloah , is used only in poetry."
According to Smith's Dictionary, "Elohim is the plural of Eloah (in Arabic Allah ); it is often used in the short form EL (a word signifying strength, as in EL-SHADDAI, God Almighty, the name by which God was specially known to the patriarchs). (Genesis 17:1; 28:3; Exodus 6:3) The etymology is uncertain, but it is generally agreed that the primary idea is that of strength, power of effect, and that it properly describes God in that character in which he is exhibited to all men in his works, as the creator, sustainer and supreme governor of the world."
The word EL is Hebrew #410 in Strong's Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary, which defines it as "short. from 352; strength; as adj. mighty; espec. the Almighty (but used also of any deity)."
From these sources, and many others, we thus determine that the Hebrew word "EL" signifies "strong" or "powerful."
https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/hebrew/410.htmlEaston's Dictionary states concerning the word "God," "It is the rendering (1) of the Hebrew 'El , from a word meaning to be strong; (2) of 'Eloah_, plural _'Elohim. The singular form, Eloah , is used only in poetry."
According to Smith's Dictionary, "Elohim is the plural of Eloah (in Arabic Allah ); it is often used in the short form EL (a word signifying strength, as in EL-SHADDAI, God Almighty, the name by which God was specially known to the patriarchs). (Genesis 17:1; 28:3; Exodus 6:3) The etymology is uncertain, but it is generally agreed that the primary idea is that of strength, power of effect, and that it properly describes God in that character in which he is exhibited to all men in his works, as the creator, sustainer and supreme governor of the world."
The word EL is Hebrew #410 in Strong's Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary, which defines it as "short. from 352; strength; as adj. mighty; espec. the Almighty (but used also of any deity)."
From these sources, and many others, we thus determine that the Hebrew word "EL" signifies "strong" or "powerful."
A side point regarding the above: The Hebrew of Exodus 6:3 does not mention God Almighty as "the name by which God was specially known to the patriarchs." The Hebrew word for "name" is not used regarding EL SHADDAI, although the King James Version adds the word "name" in English.
Even after being presented with all of the above information, some continue to present to us the idea that either Jesus has to be the one true God, or else he is a false god. Carrying this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, Moses must be either the one and only true God or a false god, since he was made ELOHIM to Pharaoh. (Exodus 7:1) The judges of Israel must be either the one and only true God or else be false gods, since they were ELOHIM. (Exodus 21:6; 22:8,9,28 [See Acts 23:5]) The angels must be the only true God, or else they are false gods, since they are ELOHIM. (Psalm 8:5—compare Hebrews 2:9; also Deuteronomy 10:17; Psalm 136:2; 138:1, as well as some other scriptures—could be speaking of angels as elohim.) The sons of the Most High to whom the Logos came must be the only true God, or they are false gods, since they are called EL, ELOHIM, and THEOI. (Psalm 82:1,6,7; John 10:34,35) The *EL* of Laban's hand must either be the only true God or else be a false god. (Genesis 31:29) The EL of the hand of Israel must be the only true God, or else be a false god. (Deuteronomy 28:32) The EL of your hand must be the only true God, or else the EL of your hand must be a false god. (Proverbs 3:27) The EL of Ezekiel 32:21—the mighty ruler or rulers spoken of in context—must be the only true God or else a false god or false gods.
Even after being presented with all of the above information, some continue to present to us the idea that either Jesus has to be the one true God, or else he is a false god. Carrying this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, Moses must be either the one and only true God or a false god, since he was made ELOHIM to Pharaoh. (Exodus 7:1) The judges of Israel must be either the one and only true God or else be false gods, since they were ELOHIM. (Exodus 21:6; 22:8,9,28 [See Acts 23:5]) The angels must be the only true God, or else they are false gods, since they are ELOHIM. (Psalm 8:5—compare Hebrews 2:9; also Deuteronomy 10:17; Psalm 136:2; 138:1, as well as some other scriptures—could be speaking of angels as elohim.) The sons of the Most High to whom the Logos came must be the only true God, or they are false gods, since they are called EL, ELOHIM, and THEOI. (Psalm 82:1,6,7; John 10:34,35) The *EL* of Laban's hand must either be the only true God or else be a false god. (Genesis 31:29) The EL of the hand of Israel must be the only true God, or else be a false god. (Deuteronomy 28:32) The EL of your hand must be the only true God, or else the EL of your hand must be a false god. (Proverbs 3:27) The EL of Ezekiel 32:21—the mighty ruler or rulers spoken of in context—must be the only true God or else a false god or false gods.
Yes, we must recognize a secondary meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words used when applied to others than Jehovah, or else the above scriptures would not make sense. Likewise, Jesus was not his God, with whom he was in the beginning; thus, theos applied to him in John 1:1 and elsewhere should be viewed in the general meaning of general or special might. Yes, "In the beginning was the LOGOS, and the LOGOS was with God, and the LOGOS was mighty. " Jesus is definitely not his God, with whom he was; Jesus is not "one God of whom are all," the only true God who sent him. -- John 17:1,3,5; Isaiah 61:1; 1 Corinthians 8:6.
The first is from The New Bible Dictionary, second ed., Tyndale House, 1982, which is highly regarded by trinitarian scholars. "This work is destined to become a standard that will be turned to often by students and ministers alike." - Christianity Today. "... the most up-to-date work of its kind now available. I am finding it a handbook of immense value in my own Bible study and teaching." - F. F. Bruce, Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis, University of Manchester.
SONS (CHILDREN) OF GOD.
I. In the Old Testament a. Individuals of the class 'god' [angels]
'Son' (Heb. ben, Aram. bar) is commonly used in Semitic languages to denote membership of a class, as 'son of Israel' for 'Israelite', 'son of might' for 'valorous'. 'Son of God' in Heb. means 'god' or 'god- like' rather than 'son of (the) God (Yahweh)'. In Jb. 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1; 89:6, the 'sons of God' form Yahweh's heavenly train or subordinates, though LXX Job calls them angeloi [angels] of God .... Similarly the 'son of the gods' in Dn. 3:25 is called the 'angel of the Jews' God' in 3:28....
b. Men who by divine appointment exercise God's prerogative for judgment In Ex. 21:6; 22:8-9, 28, 'God' (Heb. elohim) may stand for 'judges' ..., his deputies, exercising power of life and death (cf. 2 Ch 19:6), as may be the case in Ps. 82:6. - p. 1133.
Lk 6:35, 'you will be sons of the Most High', means little more than 'you will be like God'. 'Son of...' is an idiom for 'having the characteristics of' or 'doing the work of' .... Ps. 82:6 discussed by Jesus in Jn. 10:34-36, may be an OT example of this sense, judges being men who exercise God's power of life and death. - p. 1134.
In the language of the OT ... rulers and judges, as deputies of the heavenly King, could "be given the honorific title 'god' ... or be called 'son of God'." -- NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985. Footnote for Ps. 82:1.
In this psalm, which praises the [Israelite] king ..., it is not unthinkable that he was called 'god' as a title of honor (cf. Isa. 9:6). -- NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985. Footnote for Psalm 45:6.
The reason why judges are called 'gods' in Ps. 82 is that they have the office of administering God's judgment as 'sons of the Most High'. In context of the Ps. the men in question have failed to do this.... On the other hand, Jesus fulfilled the role of a true judge as a 'god' and 'son of the Most High'. -- The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986. Vol. 3, p. 187.
The word [theos, 'god' or 'God'] is used of Divinely appointed judges in Israel, as representing God in His authority, John 10:34. -- W. E. Vine. An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, page 491.
65. GOD - is used of any one (professedly) MIGHTY, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g. - Exod. 7:1; 15:11; 21:6; 22:8, 9;...Ps. 8:5; 45:6; 82:1, 6; 97:7, 9...John 1:1; 10:33, 34, 35; 20:28.... -- Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible, Eerdmans, 1978 Reprint, "Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation".
430. [elohim]. el-o-heem'; plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but spec. used (in the plur. thus, esp. with the art.) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, ... x (very) great, judges, x mighty. -- p. 12, "Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary." Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Abingdon, 1974 printing.
Elohim: "a. rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power.... b. divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels.... c. angels Ps. 97:7 ..." -- The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, 1979, Hendrickson, p. 43.
The angels: in Hebrew, elohim, which is the ordinary word for 'God' or 'the gods'; hence the ancient versions generally understood the term as referring to heavenly spirits [angels]. -- New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., 1970, footnote for Ps. 8:6
It was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ. -- Ernst Haenchen. John 1, translated by R. W. Funk, 1984, pp. 109, 110, Fortress Press.
In this literature, the supremacy of the Most High God is never questioned, but there is considerable room for lesser beings who may be called 'gods,' theoi or elim. Moreover, both the authors of the apocalyptic literature [which includes the scriptural writings of the books of Daniel and Revelation] and Philo single out one pre-eminent divine or angelic being under God - a super-angel - called by various names in the apocalyptic texts and identified as the Logos ['the Word'] by Philo. -- p. 93, Aspects of Monotheism - How God is One, Biblical Archaeological Society, 1997.
Many more could be found, but with just the above, we have overwhelming evidence that EL, ELOHIM, and THEOS, when applied to others than Jehovah or false gods, do carry a meaning different from the common usage of "God", that is, Supreme Being, or false god.
In view of this Hebraic background, Paul S. L. Johnson suggested in his book, CREATION (page 39), that theos applied to the Logos is "a mighty one."
Similarly, the footnote for John 1:1 of the Revised Version Improved and Corrected suggests: "Or, the Word was with the Mighty, and mighty was the Word!"
The author of the Unitarian section under John 1:1 in the book, *The Great Debate Regarding The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit*, states:
Since the word "theos" in the phrase "the Word was God [theos]" is not preceded by the article "ho" (the God), as are the other two uses of theos in verses 1 and 2, it can be understood as an adjective rather than a noun; "the word was mighty". Theos is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word "elohim" which can mean "mighty" as in Gen 30:8 and 1 Sam 14:15.
Thus seen, in respect to the Hebraic usage of the words for "God", there are four basic usages:
(1) The MIGHTY ONE INNATE, the only one whose might is from Himself (hence, the source of all might, power, and strength in the universe; not receiving His might from anyone else), which corresponds to our common usage of "God" as meaning "the Supreme Being," the "Almighty" Jehovah. For lack of a better way to express it, we often refer to GOD as applied to Jehovah as “The Mighty One Innate." Only He is the source of all (1 Corinthians 8:6).
(2) False gods—so-called gods who by nature have no might at all to do anything (Deuteronomy 4:28; Daniel 5:23; Isaiah 45:20; Galatians 4:8; 1 Corinthians 8:5).
(3) Mighty ones who are such because the only true Supreme Being has given them special power or authority, either directly or by allowance, such as Moses to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1), the sons of the Most High (Psalm 82:1,6; John 10:34-36), and the angels (Psalm 8:5; compare Hebrews 2:7), and others (1 Samuel 28:13; Ezekiel 32:21; 2 Corinthians 4:4), including Jesus (John 1:1, Psalm 45:6; John 1:14; 20:28 and Hebrews 1:8, also Isaiah 9:6 if "EL" [Strong's #410] is being applied to Jesus in this verse).
(4) General might, power, great, etc. -- Genesis 31:29; Deuteronomy 28:32; Nehemiah 5:5; Psalm 36:6; 82:1; Proverbs 3:27; and possibly John 1:1.
Common Mistakes in Defining and Debating the Trinity
An analysis of terminology, assumptions, and biblical foundations
Misdefining the Trinity
A widespread mistake among Bible Students, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others is describing the Trinity as “three gods in one person” or “three gods in one god.” Trinitarians reject this characterization and insist that their doctrine is “three persons in one God.” When the definition is misunderstood, trinitarians often dismiss non‑trinitarian arguments outright, believing the opposing side is attacking a caricature rather than the actual doctrine.
Overemphasis on the Trinity’s Unreasonableness
Another common error is focusing solely on the Trinity’s incomprehensibility. The doctrine is indeed philosophically contradictory and impossible to explain coherently, but this is not the primary reason for rejecting it. The central issue is biblical: the concept simply does not appear in Scripture, and the Bible remains fully harmonious without introducing a triune being.
Conflicting Terminology and Redefinitions
Trinitarian theology depends heavily on specialized definitions of terms such as person, essence, and nature. These definitions differ from ordinary usage. When non‑trinitarians describe Jesus and the Father using normal language, trinitarians often accuse them of misrepresentation.
From a non‑trinitarian perspective, if the Father is God (Supreme Being), the Son is God (Supreme Being), and the Holy Spirit is God (Supreme Being), the natural conclusion is three Supreme Beings—three Gods. Trinitarian terminology attempts to avoid this conclusion by redefining “God” in terms of essence rather than identity.
Scriptural Interpretation and Added Philosophy
Passages showing Jesus being sent, anointed, or exalted by Jehovah (Isaiah 61:1–2; John 17:1–3; Ephesians 1:3,17–23) are straightforward in a non‑trinitarian reading: Jesus is not Jehovah. Trinitarian interpretation, however, requires inserting philosophical categories into the text, treating these interactions as one “person” of God sending another “person” of God. Scripture never presents such a framework; it must be added to the text.
Athanasius and the Formation of Trinitarian Categories
The theological vocabulary used to defend the Trinity was developed to support the doctrine itself. Athanasius insisted that all interpretations and definitions conform to the idea that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share the same divine essence (homoousios). Athanasius evidently did not know Biblical Hebrew, and his approach relied heavily on the Christianized Greek Septuagint and did not account for the Hebrew usage of terms for “God,” which often refer to might, strength, or authority rather than essence.
Philosophical Definitions of Essence, Person, and Substance
Trinitarian sources define God using complex philosophical terms—hypostasis, ousia, essence, nature, being, and more. These definitions often shift depending on context, allowing the doctrine to be maintained even when biblical language does not support it.
For example, hypostasis in Hebrews 1:3 is variously translated as “substance,” “being,” or “nature,” blurring distinctions between hypostasis and ousia. Yet Hebrews 1:1–3 presents God as one hypostasis: one person speaking through the prophets and now speaking through His Son.
The Problem of Sentient Being and Essence
In ordinary usage, each person is a distinct sentient being. Trinitarian theology attempts to separate “person” from “being,” claiming that three persons share one being. This leads to contradictions: three distinct centers of will and consciousness are said to be one omniscient sentient being. Appeals to mystery are often used to avoid addressing these inconsistencies.
Subordination vs. Equality
Although trinitarians claim equality of essence, Scripture consistently shows Jesus subject to the Father. This is explained as voluntary subordination of one person to another within the Godhead. Yet this explanation conflicts with the claim that all three persons are equally and fully the Supreme Being.
Mystery as a Defense
The complexity and contradictions within trinitarian definitions are often treated as evidence of divine origin. The mysteriousness of the doctrine is presented as proof that it could not have been invented by humans. This rhetorical strategy discourages critical examination and reinforces doctrinal loyalty.
Extra‑Biblical Philosophy and Pagan Parallels
The philosophical structure of the Trinity is not found in Scripture. Even pagan triads do not use the same conceptual framework. Some resemble modalism more than the later Christian Trinity, suggesting that the doctrine developed over time rather than being part of the original apostolic faith.
The Biblical Question
The central issue is whether Scripture ever presents the idea of three persons in one being. It does not. The triune model was formulated after the Bible was written, and trinitarian interpretations require adding philosophical constructs to the text. The biblical narrative remains coherent without these additions.
Conclusion
The Trinity depends on extra‑biblical terminology and philosophical categories that must be imposed on Scripture to sustain the doctrine. A consistent reading of the Bible does not require such additions, and the faith delivered to the saints presents God and Christ without a triune being.
Trinitarian False Definition of Christian
In the registration process of a forum one is asked to give an answer to a question, but one is limited to three answers.
Have you made a decision to follow Christ? (Definition)
Yes, I am a Christian. No, I am not a Christian. No I am not, but I am seeking Christ.
For the purpose of posting as Christian on this board, we believe:
A Christian is a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, referred to as Christ or Messiah. Christians believe Jesus to be the only Son of God, who lived a sinless life. He is eternal, uncreated God, and has always been and will always be God, the creator of the universe. At the end of his earthly life He was crucified, on the third day He rose from the dead, and later ascended into heaven.
Christians further believe that Jesus alone offers salvation, and that it is only possible through and by Him. Apart from Jesus Christ, there is no salvation. Ephesians 2:8-9 states that "It is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God that no one should boast". Humans cannot save themselves through good works, only Jesus can save them. Good works, however, are a result of living according to the Word of God.
Christians identify themselves as monotheistic, believing that there is one God.
If, by checking the block saying that one is a Christian, a Christian who believes that Jesus is as the Bible teaches him to be, the Son of God, the firstborn creature, the Christian would be agreeing to the false definition of Christian as supplied, and thus that one would be lying. If that Christian believer should check either of the blocks saying that I am not Christian, that would also be lying. And since the registration requires one to answer the question by one of the answers provided, such a follower of the Lord Jesus could not complete the registration.
Of course, the Bible nowhere requires that, for one to be a follower of Jesus, one has to add to the scriptures that Jesus is the uncreated God who, in actuality, the scriptures tell us sent Jesus. The scriptures nowhere declare Jesus to be the creator of the universe.
To believe the second paragraph would, in effect, negate belief in the third paragraph, the paragraph concerning salvation in Christ, for there could be no salvation in Christ if Jesus is the Most High. Rather than condemning sin in the flesh (Romans 8:3), Jesus would have justified sin in the flesh, for it would have proven that man has to be the Supreme Being in order to perfectly obey the Supreme Being.
Nor do the scriptures anywhere require that the atoning sacrifice for sin has to be the sacrifice of the Supreme Being to the Supreme Being. That which was required was one sinless man, as Adam was sinless before his disobedience, and God provided such a man through the miraculous birth of Jesus. By condemning all of the offspring of Adam in one man, only one uncondemned man was needed to offset what Adam had done. Thus, the man Christ Jesus gave himself as a ransom for all.
What Paul said was to be required for a Christian to believe is that "if you will confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Romans 10:9) He said nothing about believing that Jesus is the God of Abraham, who in reality raised Jesus from the dead. (Acts 3:13-26) Nor is there anything in the Bible that says the part of the faith once delivered to the saints was the belief that Jesus is a person of the God of Abraham.
We do agree that salvation is only through, by means of, Jesus, whom Jehovah anointed and sent. -- Isaiah 61:1,2; John 17:1,3.
The trinitarian definition of Christian has to be actually added to and read into what the Bible says, for the Bible nowhere says that one has to create a concept such as the trinitarian dogma in order to be a follower of the one who was sent by the only true God. -- John 17:1,3.
Arius and the Deity of Christ
http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2008/08/biblical-basics-deity-of-christ.html
According to this blogsite:
Arianism denies the deity of Christ in particular and the Trinity in general. It seems to have started with Arius.What did Arius actually say? It is difficult to know all the details of the teachings of Arius, since practically all that was written by him was systematically destroyed by the trinitarians. Most of what we have is what trinitarians writers and some writings of his later followers assert that Arius taught. Of Arius' actual writings, what we have is only that which the trinitarian, Athanasius, preserved. Only two letters of Arius were preserved, evidently because these two letters provided the trinitarians with an alledged basis of damning Arius for what he believed. These two letters can be found online (translated into English -- the translation may be biased) at:
http://ecole.evansville.edu/arians/arius1.htm
http://ecole.evansville.edu/arians/arius1.htm
There is nothing in the letters that indicate whether Arius actually claimed to deny the deity of Christ. To trinitarians today, evidently define "deity" (or divinity) as possessing the exact same uncreated, eternal, and infinite divine essence or substance (ousia) that belongs to only to the Supreme Being As far as the limited meaning of "deity" as given by trinitarians, Arius did deny that Jesus was the Supreme Being. This does not mean that he was denying the attribute "deity" to Jesus in the Biblical sense, although apparently, like Athanasius, Arius had no actual working knowledge of Hebrew to relate the Jesus' deity as being in the sense of might, power, or, of a divine being, similar to the angels. (Psalm 8:5; Hebrews 2:7) Thus, based on what we actually have of Arius' writings, whether Arius was denying the deity of Jesus would depend on defining the English word "deity" apart from Biblical usage.
The might, power, and authority of Jesus was that given to him by the only true Might of the universe, that is, his God and Father. (Psalm 2:6-8; 45:7; 110:1,2; Isaiah 9:6,7; 11:2; 42:1; 61:1-3; Jeremiah 23:5; Daniel 7:13,14; Matthew 12:28; 28:28; Luke 1:32; 4:14,18; 5:17; John 3:34; 5:19,27,30; 10:18,36-38; 17:1,3,5; Acts 2:22; 10:38; Romans 1:1-4; 1 Corinthians 15:27; Colossians 1:15,16; 2:10; Ephesians 1:3,17-22; Philippians 2:9-11; Hebrews 1:2,4,6,9; 1 Peter 3:22) Jesus is never depicted as the source of his deity, but rather he is always depicted as receiving his deity -- his power, authority, etc., -- from his God and Father.
The letters of Arius, however, do show that there was and had been for some time a lot of different views of who Jesus was and is. Was Arius presenting a new view? Or was he defending what the Bible says? We should note that Arius describes the view of certain men (that were teaching that Jesus had no beginning) to be that of "heretical opinions." Therefore, he certainly believed that what he was saying was not a new view, but that the other views were the "new" views.
Comments
Post a Comment